UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: time to prioritize patient safety.

Tweetable abstract Pretreatment UGT1A1 genotyping and a 70% irinotecan dose intensity in poor metabolizers is safe, feasible, cost-effective and essential for safe irinotecan treatment in cancer patients. It is time to update guidelines to swiftly enable the implementation of UGT1A1 genotype-guided irinotecan dosing in routine oncology care.

Dutch pharmacogenetics working group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between UGT1A1 and irinotecan.

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the starting dose optimization of the anti-cancer drug irinotecan to decrease the risk of severe toxicity, such as (febrile) neutropenia or diarrhoea. Uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase 1A1 (UGT1A1 encoded by the UGT1A1 gene) enzyme deficiency increases risk of irinotecan-induced toxicity. Gene variants leading to UGT1A1 enzyme deficiency (e.g. UGT1A1*6, *28 and *37) can be used to optimize an individual's starting dose thereby preventing carriers from toxicity. Homozygous or compound heterozygous carriers of these allele variants are defined as UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (PM). DPWG recommends a 70% starting dose in PM patients and no dose reduction in IM patients who start treatment with irinotecan. Based on the DPWG clinical implication score, UGT1A1 genotyping is considered "essential", indicating that UGT1A1 testing must be performed prior to initiating irinotecan treatment.

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: A prospective safety and cost analysis in poor metaboliser patients.

AIM: To determine the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and cost of UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study, patients intended for treatment with irinotecan were pre-therapeutically genotyped for UGT1A1∗28 and UGT1A1∗93. Homozygous variant carriers (UGT1A1 poor metabolisers; PMs) received an initial 30% dose reduction. The primary endpoint was incidence of febrile neutropenia in the first two cycles of treatment. Toxicity in UGT1A1 PMs was compared to a historical cohort of UGT1A1 PMs treated with full dose therapy, and to UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy in the current study. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, feasibility, and costs. RESULTS: Of the 350 evaluable patients, 31 (8.9%) patients were UGT1A1 PM and received a median 30% dose reduction. The incidence of febrile neutropenia in this group was 6.5% compared to 24% in historical UGT1A1 PMs (P = 0.04) and was comparable to the incidence in UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy. Systemic exposure of SN-38 of reduced dosing in UGT1A1 PMs was still slightly higher compared to a standard-dosed irinotecan patient cohort (difference: +32%). Cost analysis showed that genotype-guided dosing was cost-saving with a cost reduction of €183 per patient. CONCLUSION: UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing significantly reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in UGT1A1 PM patients treated with irinotecan, results in a therapeutically effective systemic drug exposure, and is cost-saving. Therefore, UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan should be considered standard of care in order to improve individual patient safety.

Pre-therapeutic UGT1A1 genotyping to reduce the risk of irinotecan-induced severe toxicity: Ready for prime time.

BACKGROUND: Pre-therapeutic UGT1A1 genotyping is not yet routinely performed in most hospitals in patients starting irinotecan chemotherapy. The aim of this position paper was to evaluate the available evidence and to assess the potential value of genotyping of UGT1A1∗28 and UGT1A1*6 in patients before starting treatment with irinotecan to reduce the risk of severe toxicity. METHODS: The literature was selected and assessed based on five pre-specified criteria: 1) the level of evidence for associations between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and irinotecan-induced severe toxicity, 2) clinical validity and utility of pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1, 3) safety and tolerability of irinotecan in carriers of UGT1A1 polymorphisms, 4) availability of specific dose recommendations for irinotecan in carriers of UGT1A1 polymorphisms, 5) evidence of cost benefits of pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1. RESULTS: On all five criteria, study results were favourable for pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1. A high level of evidence (level I) was found for a higher incidence of irinotecan-induced severe toxicity in homozygous carriers of UGT1A1*28 or UGT1A1*6. The clinical validity and utility of this genetic test proved to be acceptable. Dose-finding studies showed a lower maximum tolerated dose in homozygous variant allele carriers, and most of the drug labels and guidelines recommend a dose reduction of 25-30% in these patients. In addition, pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1 is likely to save costs. CONCLUSION: Pre-therapeutic genotyping of UGT1A1 in patients initiating treatment with irinotecan improves patient safety, is likely to be cost-saving, and should, therefore, become standard of care.

Genetic Variants in DNA Repair Pathways as Potential Biomarkers in Predicting Treatment Outcome of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Colorectal Peritoneal Metastasis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with either oxaliplatin or mitomycin C for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastasis (CPM) has resulted in a major increase in overall survival. Nonetheless, despite critical patient selection, the majority of patients will develop recurrent disease within one year following CRS + HIPEC. Therefore, improvement of patient and treatment selection is needed and may be achieved by the incorporation of genetic biomarkers. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of genetic biomarkers in the DNA repair pathway that are potentially predictive for treatment outcome of patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases treated with CRS + HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Given the limited number of genetic association studies of intraperitoneal mitomycin C and oxaliplatin in patients with CPM, we expanded the review and extrapolated the data from biomarker studies conducted in colorectal cancer patients treated with systemic mitomycin C- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: In total, 43 papers were included in this review. No study reported potential pharmacogenomic biomarkers in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing mitomycin C-based chemotherapy. For oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, a total of 26 genetic biomarkers within 14 genes were identified that were significantly associated with treatment outcome. The most promising genetic biomarkers were ERCC1 rs11615, XPC rs1043953, XPD rs13181, XPG rs17655, MNAT rs3783819/rs973063/rs4151330, MMR status, ATM protein expression, HIC1 tandem repeat D17S5, and PIN1 rs2233678. CONCLUSION: Several genetic biomarkers have proven predictive value for the treatment outcome of systemically administered oxaliplatin. By extrapolation, these genetic biomarkers may also be predictive for the efficacy of intraperitoneal oxaliplatin. This should be the subject of further investigation.